Star Trek has a tradition of numerous timelines and resets, so nah, the reboot doesn't get rid of it, it just shifts it over to the left or right of the numerous timeline set. And without the old timeline, the film couldn't have happened anyway.

I think one of the most important precepts a good film should adhere to is "show, don't tell." The PT drew a lot of criticism in part because it didn't always do a good job of 'showing' as opposed to 'telling'. If the film stays true to the events of Vector Prime and Chewbacca doesn't appear, I imagine that they have to at least acknowledge why he isn't around. After all, the multitudes of OT fans unfamiliar with the EU would be left wondering why the iconic Wookiee sidekick of Han Solo doesn't show up alongside the Big Three. Remember the famous "Let the Wookiee win" catchphrase. It's not going to be easy to satisfy these fans if it is simply mentioned in passing that Chewie had died years before, given how popular the character is. If they choose to elaborate on the circumstances of his death, I fear there would have to be a lengthy exposition drop that goes against the tenet of "show, don't tell." Trying to emphasize the heroic nature of Chewie's death will probably force the characters into mentioning the Vong War (as awesome as acknowledging it would be), but retelling, if only briefly, that major galactic event could waste valuable screentime. And I kind of doubt that the Yuuzhan Vong will be mentioned at all in a film set some 40 years after RotJ.

As it is, the writers are kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place; don't include Chewbacca so as to stay faithful to the EU, but risk alienating a lot of OT fans, or retcon the Wookiee's death and risk turning off EU fans. I personally think, as Riven_JTAC mentioned, the choice is obvious. They will go where the money is, and since EU fans comprise a rather small, if vocal, minority of SW fans while OT fans comprise the vast majority, they won't hesitate to include this iconic character, if only as a cameo, should they deem it would attract more moviegoers (and if Mayhew is up to the task). I think most EU fans would still go to the theaters to watch Episode VII regardless of whether or not Chewie appears. One retcon shouldn't color one's opinion of an entire movie (though there will probably be a lot more post-RotJ EU retcons incoming). And let's be honest, it's probably not going to make or break the movie, as I doubt Chewie would play a major role even if he shows up. Just my $0.02.

Click to expand...

You said that much better than I could have. I completely agree that it would really confuse people if there was no mention at all and it would do more harm than good if there were just some off-hand remarks meant to acknowledge Chewie's absence and explain it.

Doesn't changing the past in Star Trek usually overwrite the preexisting timeline instead of creating a new one? I thought that's why they always have to be so careful when they're mucking about in the past; if altering the past just created a new timeline instead of erasing the future they came from, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the idea that the Trek "prime" timeline is running around unaffected from Nero's actions does run counter to, like, every Trek time travel story before that where the gist was "Crap! Past has been changed, our present has been altered ... there we go, phew, that worked out!". But one of the writers explained it as, timeline creating an alternate reality is a more "realistic" theory instead of destroying it, I think he likened it to writing a story where scientific knowledge knew that the Earth was flat, but then later you have to write another story, and everyone knows that the Earth is round. I think there was a Trek novel ("watching the clock") that made the two bits work together with the theory: if you go back in time & stay there, alternate reality spin off. If you go back in time & come back, timeline alters. Not a perfect retcon but it works well enough, since alternate realities are a part of Trek lore. As for me, I could go either way (It's not as if anyone was DOING anything in the original timeline anymore, were they?). Hell, Spock and Nero are there and have memories & technology from the "prime" timeline so it does prove that it does exist. and probably still does. They create an alternate reality, which is what Uhrah flat-out says about halfway through the movie.

Of course, if you go far down the rabbit hole of Trek lore, it gets a little mindbending: what about the Borg trying to stop Cochrane, what happens if the TNG crew doesn't exist anymore? What about the good timeship Relativity, or Daniels from "Enterprise", and their job is to literally stop the timeline from crashing in on itself? And so on.

Basically, if you say "the Abrams movie destroyed the entire Star Trek universe" you would be right. Also if you say "The Abrams movie works concurrently with the Star Trek Universe" you'd also be right. That's actually why I like the flick so much, it's a sequel, a prequel, a reboot, and a remake all at once. A Seprebootmake! I ain't never seen one of those before.

JJ Abrams and his cronies gave their middle finger salute to every longtime Trekker by eliminating/destroying 40 years of televised canon with his crappy altered timeline/reboot movie and sat back and laughed at the controversy.

I highly doubt the no-talent hack Abrams will be concerned about contradicting any EU canon for Star Wars.

Click to expand...

This is a good point the televised stuff had millions in viewership and 3 7 season long shows if he is willing to crush that no way he has a problem invalidating comics and books

Filoni was hated for killing characters, and now everyone's worried about Abrams reviving them.

Click to expand...

that is not entirely true... Filoni ressurected Maul and lots of other Jedi who had died on Geonosis ..

edit: but if it is all to worry about who is alive or dead then we have not much to fear. aside dead walking again or someone like Fett staying dead in the Sarlacc after all maybe I can envision worse things to happen...

I was just reading through the Glove of Darth Vader thread when I realized that there was a way for have your cake and eat it too.

In the Glove of Darth Vader thread Grand Moff Hissa was quoted when he tried to explain why a piece of Death Star II debris could be found on Mon Calamari:

"The intense gravity of black holes and other interstellar forces cause warps, folds, and buckles in space," explained Grand Moff Hissa. "Asteroids and spaceships have tumbled into these space warps and have suddenly reappeared millions of miles away. The same thing must have happened to this debris from the Imperial Death Star."

Think about it. A dovin basal was used to crash that moon into Sernpidal. And as we all know, a dovin basal creates black holes.

So what I think happened is this: Chewie was sucked into a "warp, fold or buckle" in space and deposited to some remote part of the galaxy. After many years, Chewie finally makes it back to the civilized parts of the galaxy and reunites with Han immediately before the start of the sequel trilogy.

Han and Chewie have whatever ever adventures Disney has planned for them and then when the sequel trilogy ends Chewie immediately dies, perhaps slipping on a banana peel and breaking his neck.

I like this idea since it would forever put the fans of the wookie into the debt of the authors of the Glove of Darth Vader series.

As much as I like the Glove of Darth Vader series (I really do) I don't see your little theory happening. Why would they bring up something from the series? It would be funny but I can't see it happening.
And while Jedi Ben is right about no body= no death (and even death not being enough sometimes) its been 20 years roughly since that point. Chewie's return would ruin the thing we got going now. They've gotten over it mostly. Granted the books later aren't as good but shoe-horning Chewie in just to please fans annoys me. I came to terms with Chewie's death years ago so to bring him back would not be appreciated.

In case anyone doesn't know it, there's a Section 31 episode of Trek where a character gets disintegrated on-screen, yet still lives!

The issue isn't ultimately resurrecting a character but how. If it's done in a way that people accept, it flies - Joe Quesada may have uttered the phrase "dead is dead" but he also broke with it too! If you know the rules and how they work, you can break them and get away with it.

If Chewie was brought back in DNT I might have been fine with that. If Del Rey wanted to get away from the NJO and appease the fans that hated Chewie's death, that would have been the perfect time. Its way too late for it to be believable now.